Adios Vista! Windows 7 On The Horizon - Page 2

Ghoulish Delight · 10-29-2008, 09:37 AM

Clearly no one at Microsoft would want to count ME. And I consider the change from 3.11 to 95 a radical enough jump to disconnect it from the lineage. Someone who's never touched Windows 95 but has had experience with any of those later versions would be able to navigate Windows 95 fairly intuitively. Put them in front of 3.11 and they're in for a shock.

innerSpaceman · 10-29-2008, 09:41 AM

Yeah, shenanigans. Windows ME at the very least. 7 is HUH?

Still, I suppose any improvement on Vista is to be welcomed, no matter what it's called. And you can't blame them for dropping the name that finally equated Microsoft with FAIL.

Ghoulish Delight · 10-29-2008, 09:42 AM

There was never a Windows 97. Windows 98 was supposed to be out in 97. There may have been beta versions in 97, but those would have carried the code name "Memphis", not Windows 97.

There WAS an Office 97, that is often what causes people to think they've seen a Windows 97.

Moonliner · 10-29-2008, 09:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ghoulish Delight

There was never a Windows 97. Windows 98 was supposed to be out in 97. There may have been beta versions in 97, but those would have carried the code name "Memphis", not Windows 97.

There WAS an Office 97, that is often what causes people to think they've seen a Windows 97.

I know, I was trying to toss him a bone on that one but you had to call him out...

Isaac · 10-29-2008, 09:58 AM

No, this was Windows 97.
It could have only been a beta version, but I remember it.

innerSpaceman · 10-29-2008, 10:07 AM

Yep, I am clearly in the "most consumers" category and I've never heard of Windows 2003.

(Oh, and I may be biased, but I've long ago learned if Isaac remembers it .... it happened.)

Ghoulish Delight · 10-29-2008, 10:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by innerSpaceman

(Oh, and I may be biased, but I've long ago learned if Isaac remembers it .... it happened.)

He's either misremembering for the first time in his life, or he saw some weird hacked version, because Microsoft never put out a version of Windows branded as Windows '97, even in beta.

Morrigoon · 10-29-2008, 10:10 AM

I would argue that since Windows 2000 and Windows ME both came out, fancy that, around 2000, that they are counted as variations of the same release - even though one is VASTLY superior to the other

Moonliner · 10-29-2008, 10:12 AM

And all of this discussion only serves to support my argument. '7' was selected because it's a cool 'lucky' number.

Ghoulish Delight · 10-29-2008, 10:59 AM

*forehead slap* Wow, I can't believe I forgot about that versioning.

10-29-2008, 09:37 AM	#1
Ghoulish Delight I Floop the Pig Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Alternative Swankstyle Posts: 19,348	Clearly no one at Microsoft would want to count ME. And I consider the change from 3.11 to 95 a radical enough jump to disconnect it from the lineage. Someone who's never touched Windows 95 but has had experience with any of those later versions would be able to navigate Windows 95 fairly intuitively. Put them in front of 3.11 and they're in for a shock. __________________ 'He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me.' -TJ
	Submit to Quotes

10-29-2008, 09:41 AM	#2
innerSpaceman Kink of Swank Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Inner Space Posts: 13,075	Yeah, shenanigans. Windows ME at the very least. 7 is HUH? Still, I suppose any improvement on Vista is to be welcomed, no matter what it's called. And you can't blame them for dropping the name that finally equated Microsoft with FAIL.
	Submit to Quotes

10-29-2008, 09:42 AM	#3
Ghoulish Delight I Floop the Pig Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Alternative Swankstyle Posts: 19,348	There was never a Windows 97. Windows 98 was supposed to be out in 97. There may have been beta versions in 97, but those would have carried the code name "Memphis", not Windows 97. There WAS an Office 97, that is often what causes people to think they've seen a Windows 97. __________________ 'He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me.' -TJ
	Submit to Quotes

10-29-2008, 09:58 AM	#5
Isaac the one n only Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Anaheim Posts: 1,236	No, this was Windows 97. It could have only been a beta version, but I remember it. __________________
	Submit to Quotes

10-29-2008, 10:07 AM	#6
innerSpaceman Kink of Swank Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Inner Space Posts: 13,075	Yep, I am clearly in the "most consumers" category and I've never heard of Windows 2003. (Oh, and I may be biased, but I've long ago learned if Isaac remembers it .... it happened.)
	Submit to Quotes

10-29-2008, 10:10 AM	#8
Morrigoon I throw stones at houses Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Location: Location Posts: 9,534	I would argue that since Windows 2000 and Windows ME both came out, fancy that, around 2000, that they are counted as variations of the same release - even though one is VASTLY superior to the other __________________ http://bash.org/?top "It is useless for sheep to pass a resolution in favor of vegetarianism while wolves remain of a different opinion." -- William Randolph Inge
	Submit to Quotes

10-29-2008, 10:12 AM	#9
Moonliner 8/30/14 - Disneyland -10k or Bust. Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 9,022	And all of this discussion only serves to support my argument. '7' was selected because it's a cool 'lucky' number. __________________ - Taking it one step at a time.
	Submit to Quotes

10-29-2008, 10:59 AM	#10
Ghoulish Delight I Floop the Pig Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Alternative Swankstyle Posts: 19,348	forehead slap Wow, I can't believe I forgot about that versioning. __________________ 'He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me.' -TJ
	Submit to Quotes